'>>16521817
Because God doesn’t exist';

'>>16521817
Because suffering, like everything, has its place. However what God gave you is the ability to conquer suffering and rise from it. To stare at the face of death knowing there will be a resurrection. To gain eternal life in paradise through the faith that Jesus is the key to it.

He has risen.';

'>>16521832
seethe. What is your proof?

We have many formal logic proofs. You got any?

>>16521817
Free will. Story of Adam shows Man given free will, but failing.

When you fail before God, your metaphysical being is seperated from God.

God is the good. Every good stems from God.

The test of Adam was needed since Lucifer was the greatest of Seraphim for eons, and then he decided to rebel. Instead of wait eons fro man to rebel, we put forth the test immediately.

God is merciful, so he didnt destroy Adam, and let humanity live and try again. Man's nature wasnt irrevocably changed, unlike the demons when they chose against God. People have a choice.

The reason pain exists is because of the fallen state of the world and sin, like why we arent immortal. God made man mortal so sin didnt spread and ruin metaphysical reality. Basically killing sin. God is the essence of good. Bad is bad. We dont want bad to exist in the presence of good (God).';

'>>16522340
What is benelovence to you?
>>16522368
>The reason pain exists is because of the fallen state of the world and sin
So God won't intervene on people's suffering because they're related to Adam and Eve, who fell? Because that sounds unjust.';

'>>16522440
Whatever is in God's will.';

'>>16522440
>So God won't intervene on people's suffering because they're related to Adam and Eve, who fell?

Sin transformed the human soul. When you are born, you have the stain of original sin. But not original guilt.

You have original sin, however, hence why we baptize infants.';

'The Angels envy you for your opportunity to show your strength in the face of adversity and think you look like a total faggot complaining about your lot in life. You get an eternity to be beautiful and enjoy a blissful existence, but only a few decades to suffer as an ugly bastard.';

'>>16522340
idk how i read all that as a giant fart noise but i did';

'>>16521817
If God's standard of action were "end all suffering" then he never would have taken any action in the first place, since the initial state of existence was one without suffering (just him and nothing) so the goal would already have been 100% met';

'>>16522461
>Whatever is in God's will.
Even not intervening in people's suffering?
>>16522469
What is the relation of original sin to God's allowance of our suffering?';

'>>16522628
Yes, why did God create calamities?';

'>>16522628
I do wonder about that. If he was perfect, why do anything else? Why make anything?';

'>>16522656
>If he was perfect, why do anything else? Why make anything?
The best possible being + 1 other good thing means you have more total goodness than the best possible being alone';

'>>16522649
>What is the relation of original sin to God's allowance of our suffering?
>>16522368
^That

Free will. Suffering is the experience of the separation of God. Because it is the separation from the good.

If you are with God, you experience no suffering. But if you are separated from God, you are in a sinful state, partially or fully. So if you were with God youd experience x, if you were separated, youd experience -x. It so happens to be that God is good so you experience the opposite of good.

God allows for suffering essentially, in the world view, means God allows us to be separated from him. The two are interchangeable. God allows us the free will to love him or not.';

'>>16522764
Do good things besides God exist? Also, I wasn't the anon who answered that question. Please answer why God creates calamities.
>>16522835
>If you are with God, you experience no suffering. But if you are separated from God, you are in a sinful state, partially or fully. So if you were with God youd experience x, if you were separated, youd experience -x. It so happens to be that God is good so you experience the opposite of good.
Then how do we still experience good things, if we have free will and are separated from God?';

'>>16523387
>Then how do we still experience good things

The devil was a seraphim. Closest to God.

It is an obfuscation of goodness. A misuse of goodness.

Love is good, and is manifested in sex through marriage.

Sex outside marriage is love distorted. A core and source which is from the good, but corrupt and incomplete. So it feels good, but is corrupt and incomplete.';

'>child has cancer
>God intervenes and cure the tumor
>adults begin to intentionally cause kids to develop cancer as a ritual to get in contact with the divine';

'>>16522368
>We have many formal logic proofs.
i.e. nothing, even if they were correct. next time say that you have many pokemon cards, it's about as convincing.';

'>>16523541
and?';

'>>16522368
How would immortality ruin metaphysical reality? The soul and the body are separate so there would be a separate heaven realm and separate earth realm.';

'>>16521817
God wants people to suffer so they can become stronger and learn lessons. God wants to separate you from the flesh if the flesh hurts you and get into spirit mode.';

'>>16523649
Cosmological. Teleological. Ontological. TAG. Pascals' Wager.

Godel Ontological proof has been formalized fully in mathematics. You may only object to the axioms. The results have shown to be consistent with automated techniques

https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf

Pascals Wager is essentially mathematical, the book "Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life" by Rota has an updated version.

Again, where are your proofs? You got any? Haven't seen them yet, pal.


>>16523657
The soul and body aren't separate. This is an idea by Decartes that has stuck around.

The Catholic church finds it heretical. I am sure the other apostolic traditions see it the same

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/dualism

The soul and body are NOT separate, they are one. Just as the two natures of Christ are one and communion allows us to become one with Christ.

The soul and body are inherently intertwined with one another. I think of it like Tendons and muscle being one. Or a knot, or like a stitching of another persons skin inside your skin. Gross analogy, but maybe this conveys some idea.';

'>>16521817
I never got the "god lets suffering happen" argument because its always answered from an atheist perspective. If I was a god of ants, and I knew for a fact that when i killed them they would go to heaven, I would not give a single ounce of a shit for their well being on earth. In fact I could crush them or drown them or do whatever the fuck to maim them on purpose and let them go to heaven faster and that would be a kind action because their suffering is only temporary and heaven is eternal.';

'>>16523682
>unironically thinks that pascal's wager is an argument for the existence of god
I'd post that image from the study looking at IQ differences between denominations, but I'm too lazy to look for it.';

'>>16521817
>Why doesn't God intervene on human suffering?
He will.';

'>>16523718
I forgot we were talking about ontology here, my bad.

Argument is still valid for why it makes more sense to follow God, however. And to put away your blasphemous tongue.

>Still hasnt provided any logical arguments, and yet continues to engage';

'>>16521817
Because he is pure evil. Can't be believe we worship this sick fuck instead of cursing him.';

'>>16523726
>continues to engage
That was literally my first post itt, faggot.
Pascal's wager fails unless you've pretty much reduced all possibilities to a)the christian god exists and b)no god exists.';

'>>16523735
>Pascal's wager fails
Read Chapter 4 of the book. Grab it off libgen.';

'>>16522649
He intervenes by being there with you to overcome the trials of your life.';

'>>16523735
You could give an infinite number of atheists an infinite amount of time, and they will never prove it to be correct.';

'>>16523387
>Do good things besides God exist?
For sure! 1 Timothy 4:4 says that "every creation of God is good", and everything God makes in Genesis is called good afterwards

>Please answer why God creates calamities.
Oh sorry I formatted my reply wrong!
In general it's to destroy evil; the specifics depend on the specific calamity. The Flood for instance was to prevent the entire population from being irreversibly corrupted by evil, and the plague sent on the Assyrian army was to prevent them from annihilating Israel';

'>>16521817
You're supposed to offer up your sufferings to Jesus.';

'>>16522368
>Adam and eve, childlike, literally can't tell good from evil
>get deceived
>somehow it's their fault';

'>>16524378
>childlike
Being childlike is a product of brain development. Adam and Eve's brains were directly created and hence didn't need to develop the way other people's brains do, hence their ability to do things like speak right away.

It's the difference between a computer fresh from the factory with just bare metal that needs to be programmed, and one that's a custom build with programs and files already downloaded to it.';

'Imagine being Israel, you are completely loyal and faithful to God and always obey him in all that he commands. He gives you a beautiful wife who you love very much and want nothing more than to have children with her, but God closes her womb so she cannot give you children. He opens the womb of your other wife who you do not love and were tricked into marrying and you have all your children with her and love them and raise them while praying to God for a son with your beloved wife. Then after 10 kids God finally opens the womb of your beloved wife and gives you a son, he is the smartest and most beautiful among your kids and instantly becomes your favorite.

Then after enjoying him for 17 years one day your sons come and tell your beloved son is dead and has been eaten by wild animals. You cry and mourn and suffer greatly. Your life is shattered and your heart broken. But you stay loyal to God. You keep suffering but God consoles you by giving you a second son with your beloved wife. So you try enjoying life with him and your other kids while you suffer in silence, mourning your favorite son without complaining about God or hating him or turning away from him.

Then after 15 years you find out that not only is your beloved son alive, but he has become the King of all of Egypt and has summoned you and your family to go live in Egypt as royalty with him. Imagine the joy you must have felt at that moment. Imagine going and seeing him dressed in kingly clothes with a crown on his head all full of majesty and glory with all his servants at his feet when you though he was dead would never see him again. Imagine how long and tight must have been the hug you gave him after all those years of mourning him and the immense happiness of hugging and kissing him while tears of joy flow from both of you.

So that pain and suffering that you went through became the cause of the greatest joy in your life, a joy that wouldn't have been possible without going through that suffering.';

'>>16524462
That is how I imagine the day of justice will be for those who have suffered unjustly on earth and have remained loyal to God when they are finally given justice and are consoled by God and rewarded for their troubles with great blessings and joys and happiness to such extinct that would make them forget any pain and suffering they have ever felt and feel eternally grateful to God for such wonderous gift.

It is the suffering that they went through that will make it all worth it, without that suffering it wouldn't have felt so special and rewarding to finally be given peace and happiness in an eternal paradise full of joys and pleasures.';

'>>16523652
If God dealt with evil on earth, evil would be affirmed and proliferate (even more so).';

'>>16523541
God could intervene on the adults doing that too.
>>16523664
What about those that don't get stronger?
>>16523712
Killing the ants without suffering would maybe be ok in your logic, but inflicting unnecessary suffering would be malevolous, no?
>>16523880
What about everyone who doesn't overcome the trials of their lives?
>>16524361
>For sure! 1 Timothy 4:4 says that "every creation of God is good", and everything God makes in Genesis is called good afterwards
So calamities are good?
>In general it's to destroy evil; the specifics depend on the specific calamity
Depending on the translation of picrel it's "I create good and evil". So why would God create calamities like babies with cancer?
>>16524365
I'm talking about God in general, not necessarily in Christianity. But considering Christianity, wouldn't what you described be malevolence?
>>16524462
>>16524486
Interesting point, but what about those that aren't rewarded? What if his son was truly eaten by wild animals? What about those that suffered unjustly and won't go to Heaven?';

'>>16525679
>So calamities are good?
For sure, they're for the greater good - that's the whole point

>Depending on the translation of picrel it's "I create good and evil".
You're talking about the 400 year old King James Version. The word there isn't like our word "evil" where it denotes something morally wrong. For instance, the same word is used in Genesis 37:20 of a wild animal, with the King James translating it "Some evil beast hath devoured him". It's used in Leviticus 27:33 to refer to gauging the quality of livestock, the Plagues of Egypt in Deuteronomy 6:22, and for the physical structure of a house in Leviticus 27:14. You can see these and all of its other uses here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7451/kjv/wlc/0-2/#lexResults

It should become immediately apparent that this Hebrew word רַע isn't something that necessarily means moral evil as in our word "evil".

To tell what sense its meant in we need to look at the passage. It’s a juxtaposition, like with the light and darkness: רַע isn’t being juxtaposed with goodness, but with peace. So its meaning here would not be the opposite of moral goodness in the sense of "evil" in modern English, but in the sense of the opposite of peace. So clearly its meaning of upheaval/calamity is intended here, like with the Ten Plagues which Deuteronomy 6 uses it to describe.

>So why would God create calamities like babies with cancer?
He doesn't, cancer is just the mechanistic consequence of DNA replication not working properly.';

'>>16521817';

'>>16521817
Your image is a renaissance symbol for God and seems to me to be renaissance-centered. Why not a triangle, a tree, a sun, a cross, a square, a house, a car, a family, a mob, a crown?';

'>>16525679
Sorry forgot to put my name back on so you know who you're talking to, I posted >>16525701';

'>>16525701
>>16525724
Why do the calamities involve suffering, like in the cases of the Flood and the Plague, while omnipotence grants many other solutions for destroying evil?

Also, wasn't it God that created the mechanism of DNA replication and the possibility of failure?
>>16525718
I just prefer it for it's simplicity.';

'>>16525815
>Why do the calamities involve suffering, like in the cases of the Flood and the Plague, while omnipotence grants many other solutions for destroying evil?
God's actions always have to be limited compared to his abilities, otherwise like the OP brought up you run into issues with infinite regresses; taking your logic to its extreme we get "why didn't God just raise them all into seventh level archangels?", with of course the next questions being why not eighth level, ninth level, etc.

>Also, wasn't it God that created the mechanism of DNA replication and the possibility of failure?
All physical systems inevitably fail, this is an absolutely inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.';

'>>16525679
>Interesting point, but what about those that aren't rewarded? What if his son was truly eaten by wild animals? What about those that suffered unjustly and won't go to Heaven?

If the son had really been eaten by wild animals then it still would have been worth it for to stay loyal to God until the end. God still gave him many blessings along the way. And the suffering have to be truly evil to not be rewarded for their troubles in the day of justice because God is very merciful. If they were not faithful to God they might not get the best of blessings but God will definitely have compassion on them for their suffering and satisfy them with peace and joy.

Your suffering will pay for many of your sins and clear many of your debts before God. So someone who has suffered a lot might have already paid for all their wrong doings and can be declared innocent in the day of justice by God's mercy. And if in their suffering they loved God and did what he considers right then their blessings will be many and their sins will not even be considered.';

'>>16525844
>Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Yahaweh, and Satan standing at his right side accusing him. Yahaweh said to Satan, “Yahaweh rebukes you, Satan! Yahaweh, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebukes you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”

Here you can see Satan accusing a man of his sins before God but God rebukes Satan because the man has clearly already suffered enough, so he forgives his sins and gives him blessings.';

'>>16525841
>God's actions always have to be limited compared to his abilities, otherwise like the OP brought up you run into issues with infinite regresses (...)
But if God's actions are always unlimited/infinite in number, how can God choose at all? Why did God chose the Flood and the Plague as actions?
>All physical systems inevitably fail, this is an absolutely inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
Wasn't it God that created the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
>>16525844
>If they were not faithful to God they might not get the best of blessings but God will definitely have compassion on them for their suffering and satisfy them with peace and joy.
What about the idea of salvation by faith? I thought only believers could go to Heaven.';

'>>16521817
God is currently busy helping Russia win the war.
Every other problem can wait';

'>>16525905
>But if God's actions are always unlimited/infinite in number, how can God choose at all?
It's not his actions, just his abilities! But only his abilities (potentials), not his actions (actuals), since actualized infinities are logical impossibilities. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W4_OXMCswKU has a quick and fun little way to see this

>Why did God chose the Flood and the Plague as actions?
Ultimately God can only directly act, and avoid infinite regresses, if he acts only when his action is required for good to be able to grow in the world as a whole. His direct action in those circumstances tells us that had he not, then that would mean the end of good's growth down the line. That's pretty easy to see with the Flood, with the text telling us that it was sent because all of humanity had been corrupted by evil, with the final holdouts Noah's family

>Wasn't it God that created the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Indeed it was';

'>>16525905
>What about the idea of salvation by faith? I thought only believers could go to Heaven.
Salvation is through the mercy of God. Whoever God has compassion on will be saved. The righteous and the just and the faithful and the humble and the meek and the suffering and the oppressed are those who God has love and compassion for.';

'>>16521832
Bingo. Sorry but we really are apes living on a planet floating around a sun that itself floats around a black hole in the center of the galaxy. Sorry guys.';

'>>16525986
>It's not his actions, just his abilities!
Sorry, that's what I meant. God's abilities are infinite. So how can God choose?>>16525986
>His direct action in those circumstances tells us that had he not, then that would mean the end of good's growth down the line. That's pretty easy to see with the Flood, with the text telling us that it was sent because all of humanity had been corrupted by evil, with the final holdouts Noah's family
Omnipotence grants many other solutions that don't inflict suffering though.
>Indeed it was God that created the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Why would God create a physical law that would make failures in DNA replication possible, resulting in suffering?';

'>>16526020
Interesting view. By the way, what's your religious position?';

'Because he is equal parts "good" and "evil" and as a result doesn't have any reason to stop suffering.';

'>>16526067
So your position is that God is neutral morally and is not benevolent?';

'>>16526069
I think he is actively benevolent to some and malevolent to others, only sometimes neutral. But ultimately I believe God's primary concern is fulfilling his own will, and the only way to avoid suffering in the next life is to do what you can to understand him and separate yourself from worldly things. If he decides to harm me I welcome that because fighting it is pointless and I should use the opportunity to learn before entering into the next life, whatever it may be. Everything else is just vanity.';

'>>16526060
I worship Yahaweh.';

'>>16526092
I guess you're a Jew or a JW, right?';

'>>16521817
>why doesn't God
>mortal asks other mortals to explain to him God's intentions
A thread died for this.';

'>>16526033
But why?';

'>>16526119
Neither, just read the OT and believed it.';

'>>16521817
>God could just end all suffering, no? That would serve as a maximum.
Copout answer. Suffering is a concept created by conscious minds bound within 3-dimensional spacetime, so to end suffering, God would basically have to end consciousness as we know it.';

'>>16524378
>>get deceived
>>somehow it's their fault

God could've skipped the test all together and just made them mortal. But he chose to be merciful and let humans decide, although it would seem it was already decided.

The point of it, is the centrality of free will.

God lets us choose. God let the Virgin Mary chose to give birth to Jesus. In the holy tradition, God gave the Theotokos the choice to birth God incarnate. And there was the possibility of her rejecting the choice and there would be no Jesus.

However, because she was a holy women, it basically was predictable she was choose rightly.

God couldve skipped this, and by your logic it seems you wish God force himself on us and his will on us, rather than giving us any choice- how arbitrary it may seem.';

'>>16526140
What's the problem with trying to understand God's actions?
>>16526171
And what passages of the OT made you form your belief on salvation, generally?
>>16526172
Suffering is not just the concept of suffering. It's the feeling of suffering. It's not true that "to end suffering, God would basically have to end consciousness as we know it". God could just not create the causes of suffering.';

'>>16526220
Too generic and you likely won't get a useful answer. If you're Hristian,';

'>>16526220
>God could just not create the causes of suffering.
Which includes consciousness. Try to keep up.';

'>>16526220
>>16526225
*Christian then there are passages and books written upon those passages which usually include direct quotations of God's Word. If you aren't then you need to see the holy book of your religion and look for the same thing.';

'>>16526055
>God's abilities are infinite. So how can God choose?
He needs the standard for making use of his omnipotence that maximizes goodness while avoiding infinite regresses. This turns out to be ensuring that goodness is always increasing.

Let's examine it. The Greek word used in the LXX for "good" is καλός, so let's use κ as the symbol for the value God seeks to increase (or, more properly speaking, for the quantity of that value). We'll define God as the best possible being: the entity with greatest possible ability and desire to increase κ.

If infinities could exist, the best possible being would make this fact true:
κ=∞

However actual infinities cannot exist; finitism is true and they are self-contradictions. The most we get in a finitist world are potentential infinities. So instead God has to transform that to be about potential infinities. This gets us the notion that God must introduce something else: something that allows for the value to grow from the starting point of 0 and yet not be actually infinite. He needs to create time and add it to the equation. Let's use t to represent time, as is standard practice. So instead of κ=∞, the following equation would be utilized:

lim(t -> ∞) κ(t) = ∞
(Sorry for the unusual format, 4chan doesn't like limits outside of boards like /sci/)

This is the minimum that ensures it is a guaranteed potential infinity.

What that means is God ensures that as the quantity of time increases, the quantity of κ increases.

Adding an extra variable to this equation which is not time-dependant would mean an actually infinite quantity of κ.

>Omnipotence grants many other solutions that don't inflict suffering though.
And many others that involve immense bliss, like elevating all pre-Flood people to eighth-level archangels, but that doesn't mean they're viable options in light of the infinite regress issue';

'>>16526228
Sorry, I meant "creating consciousness without creating suffering". While every suffering must involve consciousness, not every consciousness must involve suffering.
>>16526234
I mean, that's part of the discussion, so feel free to share these passages. The point is that this thread is open to all religions and tries to obtain naturally and rationally an answer to the question. Trying to deduce it.
>>16526288
>This turns out to be ensuring that goodness is always increasing.
Ok, but still, there is more than one option of action to ensure that goodness is increasing. How does God choose between them? Both +1 goodness and +2 goodness ensure an increase.';

'>>16526354
>Both +1 goodness and +2 goodness ensure an increase.
Gotta go with the minimum needed to keep it increasing - only the answer always being "the minimum, directly" can avoid an infinite regress';

'>>16526354
>Both +1 goodness and +2 goodness ensure an increase.

Not the same guy, but to keep in mind, infinity plus one is infinity.

There are orderings of infinities, however. You have aleph_0, aleph_1, etc. But then you would say, why not choose a bigger infinity?

You can choose a bigger infinity infinitely. And there would be no end. The idea of a 'biggest' number is found in the inaccessible cardinal. This number's existence is not provable using ZFC.

The idea of a largest cardinal number cannot be proved by ZFC. Probably doesnt exist. The conceptualization would be a set containing every set. This is the Russell set, which leads to Russell's paradox.

So, there is no end. No biggest infinity, and asking for more goodness in every circumstance will lead to infinite regress or a paradox.';

'>>16526354
>>16526380

You may, however, have ordinal numbers. But this leads to similar issues of infinite regress or paradoxes.

Also, although omega +1 < omega +2, ordinally. They are still the same 'amount' cardinality wise.

They still constitute the same 'amount' or 'size' of things. You just defined size a different way. Depending on what you mean by 'size' infinity +1= infinity, or not. But, cardinality is the most accepted notion because it represents 'amount'. Ordinality is more or less just about representation and seems to be a construct.';

'>>16526354
>While every suffering must involve consciousness, not every consciousness must involve suffering
Actually yes it does if it's in 3-dimensional spacetime, because the limitations of time and space will at some point inevitably impose a limitation on some being's happiness, which its consciousness will interpret as suffering. I remember from your last few threads that you have trouble grasping abstract concepts like that, so let me give you an example:

Jimmy is a being in your hypothetical suffering-free universe. Jimmy thinks to himself, "Man, I'd sure like infinite jelly beans right now". Unfortunately for Jimmy, infinity doesn't exist in 3-dimensional spacetime, is only able to conjure a billion quadrillion jelly beans. Jimmy, having never known suffering before, curses God for making such a terrible universe.';

'>>16526377
So if it's always the minimum increase, why it seems that the increases are not constant (sometimes more good happens, sometimes less)?';

'I'll be busy now so I'll reply to the rest of your replies later';

'>>16527744
The minimum is with him increasing it directly
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw explains it really well: he steps in and acts at times where if he doesn't then goodness is going to stop increasing';

'>>16521817
God is the culmination of everything reaching backwards in time.
God cannot exist without *everything* happening, since he is everything.
Suffering, pain, etc all these things are part of the massive mosaic of God.';

'>>16521817
He does though. He literally constantly makes unrighteous suffer and righteous joy by his own hand, and he designed them to be in such respective conditions just before the moment of creation. Get rid of the pagan Christian bullshit in your head.
All other replies are blasphemy.';

'Humans really are looking at themselves (literally big brain monkeys) and thinking : yep, we are the perfect creation of a perfect God, we are divine beings

This is crazy. As in, mental disorder.';

'>>16521817
>Why doesn't God intervene on human suffering?
God is totally indifferent when it comes to suffering but the larger point is that god does not care at all for the tangible world. God has no interest in intervening with people. If not out of sheer principle.

You gotta stop seeing god in a christian way as some actual person in the sky and more as some hands off-deistic and impersonal force that does care, but if god ever does actually help you it'll be in saving your soul, in you dying. So you should think 'oh no, god is here to save me' instead of 'yay, god is here to save me'

you are alone on the physical plane. Only your fellow man can help you.';

'>>16529137
So the natural tendency is for goodness to gros spontaneously without the action of God? How would that happen?';

'>>16526380
>Not the same guy, but to keep in mind, infinity plus one is infinity.
Yeah but is goodness infinite already? Why would you consider infinity plus a number?';

'>>16526498
What about ending all suffering that isn't about wanting an infinite amount of things?';

'>be God
>time irrelevant to you
>decide to experience yourself to see what it's like if you didn't know you're doing that';

'>>16529289
What do you mean by "everything"? Because that would possibly include things like God stopping to exist, for example.';

'>>16530415
>Yeah but is goodness infinite already?
I dont know.

But in either case, whether it is finite or infinite, if you desire something greater than what physically exists- what physically exists is finite-then youre going to lead to a paradox or some logical problem.

The idea "why doesnt God do more, there is always room for improvement" is not a good question in the context of math. No matter where God's goodness lie, if we fix a given number, mathematically there is a concept higher to it.

At minimum, God's goodness is atleast the greatest finite possibility to exist. It is like "all powerful". He is certainly all powerful relative to the physical world. His energy and capabilities are limitless with respect to the physical world. Assuming the physical world is logical and finite, then the set of all possible states within the world do not lead to paradoxes nor problems.';

'>>16529357
Why making the unrighteous suffer when omnipotence grants other solutions for teaching them a lesson? Also where are you taking this from? What is your religious position?';

'>>16530097
I didn't even know soteriology existed in deism. So God would be saving are souls from hell or what?';

'>>16530458
>So God would be saving are souls from hell or what?
Cycle of rebirth. Which most souls actually want to stay in it's pretty easy to achieve liberation you can get it in a single lifetime. For me it's been trying to force me to for 3 years.';

'>>16523682
>Cosmological. Teleological. Ontological. TAG. Pascals' Wager.
Still all unproven.
>Godel Ontological proof has been formalized fully in mathematics
I don't actually think you know what was shown. Saying you have proofs, is understood that you have proven that it's true, not that it's consistent.
>You may only object to the axioms
Which is why it's not proven. You have to actually proven them true, not prove them consistent. All that is actually done, is you don't get laughed out of the room for bringing it up, you're not actually at the Big Boy's Table yet. And considering one of Godel's axioms is that "other worlds exist"(note: not Mars, Jupiter, etc but alternate realities), you've got a lot of work to do yet.
>Pascals Wager is essentially mathematical
Clever wording.It's not mathematical.
>where are your proofs?
If you actually knew anything, you'd know that you can't prove a negative.
>You got any?
An equal number of true proofs have been provided by your post, as my post. Zero.
Creating a consistent argument, doesn't mean that it's a true argument. I can't believe the level of cope that GodFags have, when they've settled for this.
Gone are the days of looking for truth, onto the days of looking for a consistent argument. You've settled more than the mid-girl in her 30s.';

'>>16521817
>Why doesn't God intervene on human suffering?
Why argue about what the Christian God can do, when it hasn't been proven to exist?
It's like asking, why doesn't John Crichton just return to Earth again? Or why did Buffy Summers date The Immortal, didn't she learn her lesson about dating vampires?
Step 1 is proving that John Crichton, Buffy Summers, and The Immortal exist.
Step 1 isn't asking questions about something that hasn't been proven to exist.';

'>>16530498
>Saying you have proofs, is understood that you have proven that it's true

Everyone have priors. Any proof relies on axioms. The proof is valid given the set up. You would have the question the axioms.

>Still all unproven
>Which is why it's not proven. You have to actually proven them true, not prove them consistent.

They are proven with respect to the axioms. Again, in math, in physics, in any subject you prove something with respect to axioms. Whether they are axioms on ontology or being (physics and math) or on logic (logical calculus).

>And considering one of Godel's axioms is that "other worlds exist"

Other possible worlds exist. Which is both intuitive, and aligns with quantum mechanics. The standard interpretations which are non hidden variable theories are either that these possible worlds actually exist, or that there are theoretical possible worlds. So, both intuition and empiricism seem to converge in this being acceptable.

>If you actually knew anything, you'd know that you can't prove a negative.

You can, you do this all the time with mathematics. You have the law of excluded middle dictating either phi or not phi is true. Every proposition has a negative. If you prove a proposition, phi, you are showing $\lnot \lnot phi$ is true, moreover you show $\lnot psi$ is true where $psi = phi$.

Every idea of ontology has epistemological grounds. You just aren't competent enough to use it.

>An equal number of true proofs have been provided by your post, as my post. Zero.

If you want to frame it that way, I ask you for a consistent argument. Where are any consistent arguments you have?';

'>>16530533
>$psi = \lnotphi$. * Correction';

'>>16530518
>Why argue about what the Christian God can do, when it hasn't been proven to exist?

The same way we argue about the liars paradox. Are all cretans liars? Do cretans exist?

He is essentially asking whether it is consistent.

Why argue about ordinal numbers? Why argue about Aleph_1, the real numbers? Can you justify why mathematicians argue about these concepts?';

'>>16530445
>At minimum, God's goodness is atleast the greatest finite possibility to exist.
How could we be sure of that? I mean, God's goodness could be big but not the greatest finite possibility, right?
>>16530470
Where can I read more about deism's soteriology and reincarnation?';

'>>16530533
>If you actually knew anything, you'd know that you can't prove a negative.
>You can, you do this all the time with mathematics.
The point is you cannot prove a negative unless you have all the information that can exist on a point. This is only possible in mathematics. If you have at least one unknown variable, however, you cannot prove a negative. Which is the point.';

'>>16530553
>Where can I read more about deism's soteriology and reincarnation?
nowhere. It's >t. me
Did i say some buzzword?';

'>>16530433
Well, you can always move the goalposts, but it'd be cooler if you just admitted your argument is crap and stopped making these threads all the time.';

'>>16530553
>How could we be sure of that? I mean, God's goodness could be big but not the greatest finite possibility, right?

He is all good. As confirmed by ancient, holy infalliable tradition and scripture. In the book "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology", it says "The Goodness of God extends not to some limited region in the world...but to the whole world and all the beings that exist in it...'God loves us more than a father or a mother or a friend, or anyone else can love..." (Chapter 1). This is not a canon nor council, but a text which is supposed to represent the views of the orthodox faith.

He is more good than anyone can be in the world, so this is above the greatest finite possibility in the world (spacetime), at any place and anytime.

God's goodness is necessarily above any creature (whether angelic or human).';

'>>16530570
>This is only possible in mathematics.

This is possible in both mathematics and quantum mechanics via the ZF axioms and Von Neumann axiom (math and physics respectively). All predictions from theoretical physics come from the axioms. Black holes. entanglement. uncertainty principle, Quantum information systems, etc.

>If you have at least one unknown variable, however, you cannot prove a negative.

What do you mean 'at least one unknown variable'?';

'>>16530540
>Can you justify why mathematicians argue about these concepts?
They're fucking loser nerds.';

'>>16530586
>What do you mean 'at least one unknown variable'?
It's pretty straightforward. If you cannot disqualify a relevant variable to prove a negative, then you cannot prove the negative. This is only possible in math. Also, quantum dynamics are yes/no. Of course you can prove a negative if you can prove it's not yes in a yes/no. That's not what the statement is referring to.';

'>>16530610
>They're fucking loser nerds.
Loser nerds that develop concepts which turn out to have indispensable usefulness in physics- like complex analysis.

>It's pretty straightforward.

I haven't heard this terminology used prior.

>If you cannot disqualify a relevant variable to prove a negative, then you cannot prove the negative.

This definition is circular, you will need to reclarify.

"You cannot prove a negative if you cannot do something that proves a negative"

What is the variable?';

'>>16530638
>This definition is circular, you will need to reclarify.
It's not circular, you just aren't processing it. If you cannot disqualify all pertinent variables, you cannot prove a negative. This is only viable in math/closed systems where all variables are known. In practical reality, you cannot prove a negative because you cannot known all pertinent variables. Which is what the statement refers to, in utility.';

'>>16530533
>You would have the question the axioms.
You have to prove them true. I've already said it's a consistent argument. Consistent =/= true.
>They are proven with respect to the axioms
They're unproven axioms. All that has been done, is show that the argument is consistent.
>Other possible worlds exist
Wow! Let's see the proof. And by proof, I mean empirical.
>aligns with quantum mechanics
So not proven.
>or that there are theoretical possible worlds
So you admit that they're not proven.
>You can, you do this all the time with mathematics
The other anon beat me to replying.
>If you want to frame it that way, I ask you for a consistent argument. Where are any consistent arguments you have?
Why would I need a "consistent argument" for anything? I'm not the one claiming to proving any god's existence, and I'm not making the claim that no god exists. I've literally only asked you to actually provide empirical proof, because no one else was addressing this problem. All you'd done is exist in your theological bubble, where you thought that producing a consistent argument, meant that you'd actually done something noteworthy. When I say "you'd" I don't mean you did it, but that you're taking credit for what someone else has done.
This is a classic explain of the Dunning Kruger Effect. You don't realize how little you know, just because you're good at symbolic logic, doesn't mean you've done anything.
>GodFag thinks he's better than everyone for taking symbolic logic
>GodFag thinks that he's able to use this to his advantage because he knows most people haven't taken symbolic logic
>GodFag doesn't actually provide a proof and has only referenced that an argument is consistent
>GodFag should leave his theological bubble and actually realize that he's the equivalent of a toddler who just took his first step and not the Olympic runner that he thinks he is
Cope and seethe, GodFag. You've only just begun, yet you act like you're doing the victory lap.';

'>>16530409
>So the natural tendency is for goodness to gros spontaneously without the action of God
Right!

>How would that happen?
It's like 1 Corinthians 3:9 says: "we are God's fellow workers"';

'>>16530653
Alright, I realized you're speaking in terms of economics, and I can assume that you're an Austro-libertarian?

In simple systems, like physics- also you've yet to mention physics rather than math- you prove negatives all the time. The reason you prove them is justified by the axioms you use, and are able to be conceived because they are simple. This idea of 'hidden variables' only apply to large scale systems which are not a bedrock of things. Conciousness is one of those systems.

But with things like "the empty set exists", this is justified because it is simple. What exists which is more simple than the empty set?

The axiom of existentionality is thought to be true, because it is the most basic foundation of things, equality.

The rest of the axioms I would say are out of utility and to justify higher level concepts. These higher level concepts, like things on the reals, may be broken down to smaller axioms, so we supplement them as universal truths to more smaller 'atomistic' pieces. Same for physics.

When dealing with fundamental things, the idea of 'hidden variables' do not exist. They are the only concepts and are essences. They cannot be broken down further.';

'>>16530657
>You have to prove them true
You cannot prove an axiom to be true, You have to give me a reason why not to accept them. The way some axioms are removed are that they lead to paradoxes or there are reasons to not accept them.

In modal logic there are examples of this. For example one axiom is 'the axiom of counter factuals':

(phi and psi) -> (phi \box-> psi)

If phi is "there is a power outage in Moriah" and If psi is "Morioh is much darker than usual": suppose both are true.

Then we have "if it were the case that there is a power outage, then it would be the case that it is darker than usual".

But, what if Moriah had back up generators? This is a simple example. but there are many other axioms people wrestle with that no one disagrees with. But some axioms are immutable to most.

Again, everyone has priors. You have to assume something. You have a baseline epistemology youre using in this conversation.

>Wow! Let's see the proof. And by proof, I mean empirical.
>>or that there are theoretical possible worlds
>So you admit that they're not proven.

No, theoretical possible worlds mean they are true, logically, but not physically. They are non physical in their existence. The Godel proof of modal logic uses logic possibility, not physical. The multiverse theory interprets copenhagen so it appeals to physicalism.

>Why would I need a "consistent argument" for anything?

Because, otherwise, you have no grounds to say "God doesnt exist'.

>When I say "you'd" I don't mean you did it, but that you're taking credit for what someone else has done.

It is necessarily the case I will take credit, otherwise I am a quack who is saying I proved God without publishing my results.';

'>>16530665
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Since you won't properly engage. Saying "You can't prove a negative" is slang or shorthand for this.
>The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]
>While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]
>Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]
As I never made a claim about the existence or non-existence of any god, I've made no claims. There is no burden of proof on me. All I've done is show that you haven't proven anything, and only pointed out a consistent argument. But you have not proven that consistent argument to be true.
You live in as a GodFag, you think the default is that "God Exists" is already true, but that's not the default and it hasn't been proven true. All you've done, in your replies to me or the other anon, is waste time. If there was actual empirical proof for the existence of any god, we'd all already know about it. It would be on all the news stations.';

'>>16530695
>the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

>Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims

Quack doctrine and a social construct. You cited pop scientists and a Marxist's made up logical axiom (Marxism was shown to be inconsistent and false).

>There is no burden of proof on me.

There is if you want to be logical. You are admitting you have no epistemology and lean toward logical relativism.

>If there was actual empirical proof for the existence of any god, we'd all already know about it. It would be on all the news stations.

There have been constant archeological finds or events, Shroud of Turin, Dead Sea Scrolls, Eucharistic miracles, on TV, you just aren't looking. You're asking for a masterpiece of a movie, but you fail to realize that Mean Streets and The King of Comedy already existed.

Also, most people believed in God for all these reasons in television. The only thing that changed was a shift in propaganda and an agressive push to one side. Which worked so well, that people even began to question the existence of Jesus. Half the atheists I talk to dont believe in it (it is accepted by nearly all historians, as the round earth is accepted by nearly all scientists).';

'>>16530693
>give me a reason why not to accept them
No empirical proof, only theoretical proof has been shown.
>there are reasons to not accept them
We have no reason to accept theoretical possible worlds, as any answer appealing to quantum mechanics, isn't actually proving anything. The appeal to quantum mechanics is nullifying the entire conversation, because it's functionally a brand new field, and no one agrees on enough, and we don't have that much progress.
>everyone has priors
Yeah, and your's clearly includes the existence of the Christian god.
>You have to assume something You have a baseline epistemology youre using in this conversation.
Obviously, but all of my assumptions are very common. Like we're both able to understand English, etc. And nothing advanced as your assumption of the Christian God existing.
>No theoretical possible worlds mean they are true logically but not physically
No one cares about what's theoretical, when we're asking for empirical proof of any god.
>They are non physical in their existence
Nice cop-out. Why not just throw Plato's forms in there too? All chairs are representations of the "Pure Chairness Of the Form Of The Chair".
1/2';

'>>16530693
>Godel proof of modal logic uses logic possibility not physical
I'm well aware. Which is why I'm saying that you need to prove all the parts of the argument to be true, because a consistent argument doesn't do the work you think it does. All a consistent argument does, is show that you aren't logically inconsistent. It still hasn't been proven true. Or even have any supporting empirical evidence to point in that direction. I'd take even some initial empirical evidence. Yet there's none.
>The multiverse theory interprets copenhagen so it appeals to physicalism
There's no possible way that you can sit here with a straight face, and say that you actually understand all of this. You're just parroting what you've heard.
>no grounds to say "God doesnt exist'.
I have not once made that claim. I've repeatedly told you this.
>I am a quack
You can say that again.
2/2';

'>>16530748
>No empirical proof, only theoretical proof has been shown.

The empricial proof is Quantum mechanics. Quantum systems have no certain, deterministic path. They are fundamentally uncertain. Whether or not, in a future event, a particles position and momentum is (x,y) is fundamentally unknown.

Determinism can be formalized to say there is only one possible world. This concept in quantum mechanics can be formalized to say there does not exist one possible world relative to any given time. You do not know logic as you seemed to admit earlier as you seethed for me having 'special knowledge'.

> because it's functionally a brand new field, and no one agrees on enough, and we don't have that much progress.

No it is not, it has existed for nearly 100 years. Most physicists believe in Copenhagen or the many worlds theory. QED is the most accurate and precise model of science to exist, which relies on quantum mechanics. You are suggesting physicists are wrong and you know better, you have yet to explain why (there are actual reasons btw, given by people who understand QM, but I do not accept them myself).

>Yeah, and your's clearly includes the existence of the Christian god.

No, they hinge on the priors the classic argument for God hinge upon. I was partially agnostic at some point.

>And nothing advanced as your assumption of the Christian God existing.

It is not assumed, I gave proofs where God is not a priori.

>No one cares about what's theoretical,

You don't know what you're talking about nor understand what I am saying. Firstly, theoretical physics is theoretical, and evolution is theoretical. This rings as "evolution is just a theory! Proof? Proof? Source? You got a source on that?"

Using physics, it can be theoretically shown that possible worlds exist. Accept physics or be a quack, your choice. What do you believe in? Being a quack is fine, but this isnt going anywhere if I dont know whether or not you believe in physics or what you bel 1/2';

'>>16530750
..What you believe

>Which is why I'm saying that you need to prove all the parts of the argument to be true
> It still hasn't been proven true. Or even have any supporting empirical evidence to point in that direction. I'd take even some initial empirical evidence.

I gave them. Also, in math, the way axioms are shown to be false, the purden is usually on the person to prove them false. Most physics relies on "falsifiability", see Karl Popper. So, the burden of proof is actually to falsify a claim, which you've failed to do. Your favorite pop scientist does not count as a valid authority until you've justified your own prior, which you've failed to do.

>You're just parroting what you've heard.

Would you like to see my bookshelf? Or do you want to continue with your sny ad hominem attacks without justificatying even your claims against my character.

2/2';

'>>16530747
>Quack doctrine and a social construct. You cited pop scientists and a Marxist's made up logical axiom (Marxism was shown to be inconsistent and false)
I never posted that part. Way to dodge the entire section I did use.
>There is if you want to be logical You are admitting you have no epistemology and lean toward logical relativism
You've assumed that I've made the claim of "no gods exist" or something along those lines. I've not once done that, and only asked for you to actually empirically prove your claim.
>There have been constant archeological finds or events Shroud of Turin Dead Sea Scrolls Eucharistic miracles
I didn't realize that you're not only a master theologian, theoretical physicist, but now you're also someone in the upper parts of the Catholic Church, to have access to the Shroud of Turin. The DSS don't prove any god either, they just old versions of your text. Eucharistic miracles, what a joke, you're not serious are you?
>Youre asking for a masterpiece of a movie
I'm asking for something that the common person can access, and not the "personal connection to God" access.
>most people believed in God
Most people believe in ghosts and hauntings. Almost half of people think they've interacted with a ghost. Yet they're still unproven.
>it is accepted by nearly all historians
Accepting that there was a dude named Jesus, who is the son of the Jewish God, and did all of those miracles, is different than historians saying that a dude named Jesus existed 2k years ago. Especially when our earliest records were written down decades after Jesus' death. The "telephone game" shows us how unreliable the oral tradition is, and psychology has shown how unreliable witness testimony is. There's no reason to accept all the extra-ordinary claims of Jesus. It's different to say "Yeah, some dude named Jesus existed". That's what you're probably not realizing, that those atheists aren't doubting some dude existing with that name, but all the claims surrounding.';

'>>16522368
You did not answer the question.';

'>>16530791
>I never posted that part. Way to dodge the entire section I did use.

'Hitchens Razor' and 'Carl Sagan'

> I've not once done that, and only asked for you to actually empirically prove your claim.

I've given you proofs and you seem to not understand how epistemology and logic works.

>The DSS don't prove any god either, they just old versions of your text.

They validate the reliability of the Bible, decreasing the probability Jesus wasn't a Jew and decreasing the probability religious people are unreliable in transmitting text, thus decreasing the validity any arguments accusing religious people of bad faith. Therefore, decreasing justifications against God, therefore decreasing the probability God doesn't exist (however small or large that may be).

>Shroud of Turin

All these were studied by scientists and engineers and their findings were published in peer reviewed journals, and people like the BBC and national geographic did documentaries on it. You do not need to be a cardinal to see the Shroud or know its contents.

>I'm asking for something that the common person can access, and not the "personal connection to God" access.

The common person did believe in God, and any deeper, more philosophically deep arguments for God are also findable, though less accessible. You aren't looking, or you don't understand logic nor epistemology and metaphysics.

>Most people believe in ghosts and hauntings. Almost half of people think they've interacted with a ghost. Yet they're still unproven.

This was to say, the idea of God existing wasn't inaccessible to people. This "widespread proof" you're asking for was already in the collective conciousness of people. No logic changed this, only propaganda. You seemed to suggest it was logic that changed it and logic needed to change it again.

1/2';

'>>16525679
>What about everyone who doesn't overcome the trials of their lives?
Not necessarily physically overcoming, but mentally. The power of Christ's resurrection is that you can have happiness even in the darkest times of your life.';

'>>16530776
>The empricial proof is Quantum mechanics
You understand so little of QM, that you should know better than try to appeal to it.
>You do not know logic as you seemed to admit earlier as you seethed for me having 'special knowledge'
You still claim to have special knowledge, you're not only an expert in all fields, but also that you have access to knowing that the Christian God exists. When it's clear that you're not an expert in any of these fields.
>No it is not, it has existed for nearly 100 years
Exactly. Brand new.
>Most physicists believe in Copenhagen or the many worlds theory
Nice appeal to authority and appeal to large numbers. If you were such a pro, you'd know that it only takes 1 scientist to topple it. It doesn't matter how many people believe something. It matters if it's true. Which you still haven't proven any god's existence.
>You are suggesting physicists are wrong and you know better, you have yet to explain why
Because I'm aware that QM is brand new, and largely unexplained. They might be right, we have no proof of that either. They're all still working within theorems, and not theories. It'll be a long time, before QM leaves infancy.
>No, they hinge on the priors the classic argument for God hinge upon. I was partially agnostic at some point.
And now you're not, you're certain of a god's existence. Without actual empirical proof.
>It is not assumed, I gave proofs where God is not a priori
It's assumed, because there's no empirical evidence that proves it, or even empirical evidence that suggests it.
>You don't know what you're talking about nor understand what I am saying
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
>Firstly, theoretical physics is theoretical, and evolution is theoretical
Firstly, there's a significant difference in the available proof for both. Thank you for exposing your lack of scientific understanding.
>Using physics, it can be theoretically shown that possible worlds exist
But not actually shown.';

'>>16530776
>Accept physics or be a quack, your choice
lmao no, you've put faith into it. And I don't feel like sitting here for the next 3 days, teasing out your mistakes. I can accept physics, and yet understand the limitations that it has. While you've gone too far.
>What do you believe in
I believe that you'll never provide an actual empirical proof for the existence of any god, and that you're going to stall and waste time.
>this isnt going anywhere
It's not going to go anywhere, because you've put your Faith into physics.
>>16530788
>I dont know whether or not you believe in physics or what you believe
I know the limits of science, and I know the history of science, and I know that in the history of science, people made all sorts of wild claims that were eventually shown to be false, even if they had good reasons to believe them at the time. Which is why your appeal to QM is a joke.
>I gave them
You've done nothing of the sort. You think you did.';

'>>16530791
>The "telephone game" shows us how unreliable the oral tradition is, and psychology has shown how unreliable witness testimony is.

This is false, and people have changed their minds on this. When it comes to suprising events, people remember it better and are able to transmit the information more accurately

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6255933/

When children are told there would be a reward involved, the transmittion is way better. I couldn't find any peer review on 'the telephone game', hard to find. But here is an article related to the claim. I heard the claim elsewhere, as you most likely heard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327410/

But, you're missing the point here. My point was no logic changed people's minds, a lot of it was propaganda. It was clearly partially propaganda and irrational frenzy thinking because people had started to believe even Jesus himself didnt exist. which is false and a stupid position

2/2';

'>>16530788
>Also, in math, the way axioms are shown to be false, the purden is usually on the person to prove them false
Good thing we're not in math, and you can't apply that outside of math.
>the burden of proof is actually to falsify a claim, which you've failed to do
lmao. "I know that you're an idiot, who doesn't want to admit that there's no empirical proof for the existence of any god, because if he does that, then he'll doubt his Christianity, and he doesn't want to do that. All while forgetting that the entire basis is built on Faith, not anything else, so you don't actually need to try and do philosophy." How'd I do? Have fun proving that wrong. "You're a closeted faggot, who'll always be denying it, and no amount of fucking pussy will be able to prove that you're not." Oh no, you're not going to like Popper anymore.
>Your favorite pop scientist does not count as a valid authority until you've justified your own prior, which you've failed to do
I have no assumptions, because the entire time, I've been asking you to actually prove your claim. Instead, you've wasted everyone's time.
>Would you like to see my bookshelf
Wouldn't do anything to prove that you've read the books.
>without justificatying even your claims against my character.
But GodFag, you've just said that it's your responsibility to prove my claims against your character wrong.
How will you prove that you're not a closet fag in denial, when no amount of pussy fucking will do so?';

'>>16521817
The answers will be either
>suffering isn't real
>suffering is necessary
>suffering is good, actually
>stop asking questions';

'>>16530836
>Hitchens Razor and Carl Sagan
Your autism knows no bounds. You couldn't even read an explanation for what "You can't prove a negative" means in common use.
>I've given you proofs and you seem to not understand how epistemology and logic works
I've repeatedly asked for empirical proof, you've repeatedly dodged.
>They validate the reliability of the Bible
No they don't. They validate your Faith in the Bible.
>All these were studied by scientists and engineers and their findings were published in peer reviewed journals
And those journals have proven that it was actually Jesus' cloth, and that Jesus preformed those miracles, and that Jesus is the son of God? No.
>You arent looking or you dont understand logic nor epistemology and metaphysics.
Not my job to prove your argument. I understand the rest well enough.
>This widespread proof you're asking for was already in the collective conciousness of people
Appeal to large numbers.
>>16530860
>This is false
It is not false.
>When children are told there would be a reward involved the transmittion is way better
There were hundreds of people claiming all sorts of different connections to various divinities back then(even now). You're assuming that the Christian one is true, the rest are false, and not proving it. All those people who believed in those non-surviving religious beliefs would "remember it better" too. Doesn't make them true. Especially not after decades. Those children weren't being told to remember something for decades in the research. Good try though.
>missing the point here
Nah, you're point is now that you're lamenting that people don't make the same assumptions as you, so it's difficult to prove your point. I understand perfectly.
I also don't think it was propaganda, because both of my parents are very Christian, but didn't take me to church, so I wasn't propagandized into Christianity. There was no higher level propaganda effecting my parents. Mom even said she regretted not taking us.';

'>>16530857
>You understand so little of QM, that you should know better than try to appeal to it.

You've yet to show my literature or a scientist which proves me wrong, nor have you shown how my argument is invalid. all youve rejected is theoretical possibility being meaningful.

>You still claim to have special knowledge

I don't.

>When it's clear that you're not an expert in any of these fields.

I never claimed to be. You seem to be projecting because of your incompetence and disliking the idea of a theist who tries to learn science and logic.

>Exactly. Brand new.

Physics has existed for only 400 years. We can go on. Christianity has existed for thousands! Maybe Christianity is true?? Hmmm??

>If you were such a pro, you'd know that it only takes 1 scientist to topple it. It doesn't matter how many people believe something. It matters if it's true.

Do you want me to justify the copenhagen interpretation?

>And now you're not, you're certain of a god's existence. Without actual empirical proof.

We're running in circles. I gave 'proof' in the well defined way of saying things. You just refuse to accept it and you don't seem to understand what you're saying.

>Firstly, there's a significant difference in the available proof for both. Thank you for exposing your lack of scientific understanding.

My argument was that if QM, then possible worlds exist. which you might say has a plethora of empircal proof! Even moreso than General relativity.

But when you were to say 'singularities exist', then you are lik e"OMG NO WAY IFLS (I fucking love science!!)". Even though singularities are "theoretical", they are theorems assuming axioms of GR.';

'Anyways, GodFag, you'll never actually be able to provide empirical proof, so I'll let you have the last word, as you've done a great job of showing that you don't actually know enough to do so.
Have fun being a closeted fag in denial. I hope you figure out a way to prove that you're not, as no amount of pussy fucking will do it.';

'>>16530859
>It's not going to go anywhere, because you've put your Faith into physics


What is your epistemology, if you reject physics. Tell me. I am used physics assuming you have no reason to reject it.

>people made all sorts of wild claims that were eventually shown to be false, even if they had good reasons to believe them at the time.

Because they didn't prove them mathematically. You'd say the same thing about Heisenberg, it is just that you trust authority and have a silly worldview.';

'>>16530910
>You just refuse to accept it and you don't seem to understand what you're saying.
You continue to dodge what I'm asking.
Enjoy being a closeted fag in denial, while no amount of pussy fucking will prove otherwise.';

'>>16530917
>What is your epistemology
Irrelevant, because I'm still not making a claim of any god's existence or non-existence. You're the only one requiring to have an epistemology. You're the one making the claim. I'm the one asking for the empirical proof. You don't realize how much work you have to do, because you're normally only talking to other GodFags.
Best of luck closeted fag in denial, while no amount of pussy fucking will prove otherwise.';

'>>16530862
>Good thing we're not in math, and you can't apply that outside of math.

Math is the language of physics, the uncertainty principle was proved using math.

See the attached image. It is from the book "Quantum Theory for Mathematicians". Theorems, as indicated in their names, are proven purely by math and axioms.

> "I know that you're an idiot, who doesn't want to admit that there's no empirical proof for the existence of any god, because if he does that, then he'll doubt his Christianity, and he doesn't want to do that. All while forgetting that the entire basis is built on Faith, not anything else, so you don't actually need to try and do philosophy."

You don't know who I am and this is an ad hominem, illogical. You do not like logic or you don't understand it. Despite you not understanding it, you excude a noxious confidence.

>I've repeatedly asked for empirical proof, you've repeatedly dodged.

I have, I told you Quantum mechanics justifies possible worlds, through copenhagen. I will just find a paper. My professor in Modal logic has affirmed this- you act as though these are fringe ideas.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/

>No they don't. They validate your Faith in the Bible.

You don't know what statistical reliability is "In statistics and psychometrics, reliability is the overall consistency of a measure.[1] A measure is said to have a high reliability if it produces similar results under consistent conditions"

Historical reliability: https://www.historyskills.com/source-criticism/evaluation/reliability/

>And those journals have proven

They showed the linen has no naturalistic explanation of its existence and is equivalent to the gospel accounts and how forensic science and biology works when a person is scourged, stabbed, and crucified.

>>This widespread proof you're asking for was already in the collective conciousness of people
Appeal to large numbers.

You made the seeming appeal, I explained why it is false.

1/2';

'>>16530899
>There were hundreds of people claiming all sorts of different connections to various divinities back then(even now). You're assuming that the Christian one is true, the rest are false, and not proving it.

No no no. I didnt say this implies divinities are true. I said your argument was invalid.

The gospels are reliable is the suggestion, but it doesnt mean the source is valid, that is another issue.

>I also don't think it was propaganda, because both of my parents are very Christian, but didn't take me to church, so I wasn't propagandized into Christianity. There was no higher level propaganda effecting my parents. Mom even said she regretted not taking us

Propaganda doesnt work like that. Otherwise, 30% of Germans wouldnt convert to Nazism.

>You continue to dodge what I'm asking.

You are dodging

>Irrelevant, because I'm still not making a claim of any god's existence or non-existence.

Do you know what epistemology even means? It means your foundation in which you evaluate whether or not something is true.

I could also ask you for your ontology.

If I dont know your criteria, we're not getting anywhere. It will be 100 posts of you calling me names because you dont understand philosophy.';

'/thread';

'>>16521817
He does, we’re just in the hell dimension';

'>>16530571
I just thought you were taking that from somewhere and got interested.
>>16530577
But so could we say that God could intervene on the suffering which isn't about logical contradictions (like wanting infinite things) but chooses not to?
>>16530580
Right, but suppose we're trying to deduce things naturally, without resorting to religion. How would we deduce that God's goodness is the greatest?';

'>>16530577
Also, I'm not moving goalposts, or at least that's not my intention, so sorry for the impression. I'm really just trying to understand the reasons for God not to intervene on different occasions of suffering.';

'>>16521817
>God could just end all suffering, no?
We chose the broken world. If you now choose to reject the broken world, you can then have the world without suffering. But that will only come as a result of how you fight in this world. If you choose not to fight or fight for the brokenness, well, I don’t want to hear your bitching about suffering.';

'>>16532429
>But so could we say that God could intervene on the suffering which isn't about logical contradictions (like wanting infinite things) but chooses not to?
I was just making an example of how as conscious beings our desires are infinite, but being physical traps us in a finite world. That makes suffering inevitable unless God either destroys our consciousness or we leave the world for good, which according to most religions is exactly the plan.';

'>>16533347
>which according to most religions is exactly the plan.

trust the plan';

'>>16521817
>Why doesn't God intervene on human suffering?
He did....2000 years ago.';